[Bug 225622] Merge Review: boost

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Merge Review: boost


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225622


pertusus at free.fr changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |pertusus at free.fr




------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr  2007-02-17 17:53 EST -------
The package should be adjusted to adhere to the fedora packaging 
guidelines
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines
for the merge of fedora Core and fedora Extras.

Issues:

* the Source should lead to a real url

* BuildRoot is not the preferred one

* PreReq should be replaced by the appropriate Requires(post)....
In the case of boost, an even better solution would be to use

%post -p /sbin/ldconfig

%postun -p /sbin/ldconfig

* BuildRequires of libs shouldn't be necessary, they are brought in by 
  the -devel, so the following should be removed:
BuildRequires: python
BuildRequires: bzip2-libs
BuildRequires: zlib
BuildRequires: libicu

* there shouldn't be a mail sent for the test results in the default 
  case. If you really want it, I think you should consider using a
  conditional.

* Boost Software License seems to me to be very similar with the MIT 
  license. Maybe MIT-like could be used?

* in the %doc of the main package there should certainly be LICENSE_1_0.txt
  README, and many html files from the source directory, for example the 
  faq, but also many others.

* why don't you use bjam for installing?

* in the doc subpackage the directory should be tagged with %doc.

* what you do with soname is dubious. Why don't you use the upstream
  numbering?

* the %optflags are not used during the build.

* It is not very clear to me whether the devel package requires zlib-devel,
  bzip2-devel, and so on, or not.

* there is a very strange
Obsoletes: boost-doc <= 1.30.2

* the main package should certainly 
Provides: boost-python = %{version}-%{release}

* rpmlint shows that
 - there are bad perms for static libs, they should be 0644
 - some source files have bad perms, they shouldn't be executables
 - there are some scripts mixed with the headers, that were certainly
   used during build, they should be removed.
and
W: boost macro-in-%changelog check
W: boost rpm-buildroot-usage %prep rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
E: boost no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install

There are also many undefined-non-weak-symbol
W: boost undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib/libboost_python.so.1.33.1
PyExc_ImportError
for libboost_python, the python library should certainly be used during
the link of that library.

* the static libraries should certainly be moved to another
  subpackage like boost-static or boost-devel-static or something
  similar

* mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_docdir}
is unuseful

* add dots in %description

* -doc should be in Group Documentation (although Group doesn't matter much)
  and -devel in Development/Libraries

* it seems to me that -doc shouldn't require the main package.

* you should keep the timestamps for doc and headers by using -p

Suggestions:

* add / in %files to directory, to show visually that these are directories
  and not files

* use %defattr(-, root, root, -) instead of %defattr(-, root, root)

* put the html doc in the -doc subbpackage docdir and not in the main 
  package docdir, using %doc


-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.